CCW Incident (Input Please) Continued...

[Warbirds]

Once again for the truly clueless (all you need to do is read their posts to know who they are...)

Unarmed does NOT equal safe, non-threatening, no danger, etc.....
The OP stated that to him, HE WAS IN FEAR FOR HIS AND HIS FRIENDS LIVES... Why is that so frikking hard for some of you to comprehend?

Just because a perp has no visible weapon, it does NOT mean he isnt a danger or life threatening, period...... To say any different is to show your total lack of real world knowledge or in my opinion, a total lack of any knowledge at all.... Even if he has nothing but his body, it is still VERY easy for him to maim or kill you, again, if you cannot fathom that fact either, you have no clue, and no idea how the real world works, all you have is fake hollywood ideas of real life, not the real thing....

I think what bothers me the most about what the OP portrayed is the very casual, almost flippant way he used his weapon. At least that is the way I have interpreted what he had said. I don't think he respects the seriousness of carrying a firearm. I think this shows in both how he describes the incident and the fact that he didn't have his permit on him.

Also per your comments. I do not think it is reasonable in a 1v4 encounter when you have the advantage of numbers to claim you are afraid for your safety and that if your friends. I can tell you with 100% certainty my response would have been to say "Are you effing kidding me". Now if he had pulled a weapon that would have changed. It also would have been different had I been with my family or others that could not defend themselves. But 1v4 with my guy friends, no way. And none of us have any hand to hand combat training.

So you know... as a teenager I was on the losing side of a 1v5 and almost got a beating by a much larger group if it hadn't been for a neighbor from the army that stepped in, so I can tell you how serious a situation like this is even without a gun involved.

I honestly think that the correct mentality is to not want to use your weapon and for it to be the last resort. And I don't think the OP understands that fact.

 

[BC1]

Dude, that's MY move.

And seriously, I'm just gonna put this out there...if you all want to engage in debate and actually go somewhere that isn't the playground, attack the IDEA not the PERSON. You don't really know the people here, just the ideas they write about.

Some of these guys should marry each other. They're fightin like an old couple.

 

[BC1]

According to the laws of most (if not all) states, if you're a healthy adult male, the threat of bare fists does not justify deadly force as a defensive measure. I'd venture to say that this applies in 99% of all such cases, certainly including the incident involving the OPer. In the eyes of the law, we're expected to take a bare-knuckle beating.

Personally, I understand the idea of drawing-down on somebody who's enraged and screaming threats from just a few feet away. In a critical situation like that our first instinct is to go with our best, surest defense. For CCers, that's often our pistol. The law doesn't see it that way, like it or not.

From a self defense standpoint, the problem with drawing in that situation is that it effectively takes any options other than shooting off the table should the BG choose to press home his attack. Blind rage, drugs/alcohol, mental instability, etc. could mean the perp just doesn't care about your gun. Now you pretty much have to shoot him....what else are you going to do?? He's only a few feet away and will be on you in an instant. And then you know what happens??? You go to jail facing some very serious charges. Just last night on the TV program "The First 48", a man was convicted of 2nd degree manslaughter because he shot and killed somebody who had run up on him at night, yelling at him with his arm outstretched. Turns out the dead guy didn't have a weapon and was probably just pointing his finger. I watch that program regularly and it was the first time I ever felt sympathy for a shooter on the show. Perfect example of what might happen if you draw on somebody who "might" be a "potential" threat.

And if he backs off?? Well, as our OPer found out, from a legal standpoint you may very well be at the whim of the thug who created this situation (and possibly at the whim of an anti-gun prosecutor or judge). The OPer is exceptionally lucky the guy didn't show up for court.

The bottom line is that you need to know the law and follow it whether you like it or not. If you choose not to then be prepared to face the consequences.

Interesting info. What most posters don't realize is that when a person claims justification of defense his/her actions are based on the standard of the reasonable person. This is the yardstick by which a grand jury (or jury) will determine if the response was appropriate based on the the situation. There is no standard definition for the reasonable person. A senior citizen may incur a deadly beating from a healthy, strong, young male. S/He may use deadly force sooner than another healthy, young, strong male. A woman may use it sooner against a male attacker. As Panheadzz mentioned, he has had a heart attack and can't defend himself as when he was young. So one must now consider the standard of the reasonable person who is disabled, eldery, smaller, female, unarmed, etc. All of this goes into the equation.

In NY one may use deadly force to stop the imminent use of deadly force, to thwart a burglary, an arson of real property, a kidnapping, sexual criminal act or an assault of such nature that significant or permanent injury will likely occur. Thus an eldery or disabled person doesn't have to take a bare-knuckle beating from a young man as it endangers their health, will likely cause significant injury and may cause death.

Each situation is different and the actions of the defender must be weighed against the facts surrounding the situation, the capability and intent of the attacker as well as the state and capability of the victim. Also was there a duty to retreat, was a retreat attempted or was the victim unable to safely retreat. Each state law may differ in these details. This is among the hardest concepts we teach in PP classes. We can't tell someone when it's time to shoot but rather can teach them the skills to prevail should the need arise.

 

[Firefighterchen]

per your comments. I do not think it is reasonable in a 1v4 encounter when you have the advantage of numbers to claim you are afraid for your safety and that if your friends. I can tell you with 100% certainty my response would have been to say "Are you effing kidding me". Now if he had pulled a weapon that would have changed. It also would have been different had I been with my family or others that could not defend themselves. But 1v4 with my guy friends, no way. And none of us have any hand to hand combat training.

The 1v4 incident was a prior incident. The OP recent incident involved him, his friend, friends pregnant girlfriend. There was a parked car with his friends friends (would you expect them to help a stranger?). So in essence it was a 1v1. I wouldn't expect his friend to help, but to get the girlfriend out of there.

 

[Cotillion]

Wow you guys are at war. Chen is the OPs unofficially bodyguard haha. I think the most important thing here is that the OP walks away from this learning a lesson. No matter what your instructor told you or what you believe is right and wrong, drawing your gun comes with HUGE risks. Even totally justified our justice system is far from perfect, especially self defense cases. Even a knife wielding maniac will have a lawsuit against you, its actually very sad what we have to go through to defend ourselves. Just remember, drawing that firearm can land you in jail, even permanently. Go through these scenarios and decide what its going to take for you to draw. I'm 6'3 240 pounds of pure chub so I've completely scratched 1on1 fist fight off the board, even if I get my butt handed to me. It's still just to risky in my opinion, unless I'm getting curb checked or something. That's another reason I carry a .380, its easier to handle in those situations.

I'm sorry your getting attacked so much and if I come off as a jerk I'm sorry for that also. Just take from this experience what you can and make the best of it. I really hope you take what I've said to heart, I'd hate for an innocent person to serve life for protecting himself. It really has to be a last resort

 

[B2Tall]

Interesting info. What most posters don't realize is that when a person claims justification of defense his/her actions are based on the standard of the reasonable person. This is the yardstick by which a grand jury (or jury) will determine if the response was appropriate based on the the situation. There is no standard definition for the reasonable person. A senior citizen may incur a deadly beating from a healthy, strong, young male. S/He may use deadly force sooner than another healthy, young, strong male. A woman may use it sooner against a male attacker. As Panheadzz mentioned, he has had a heart attack and can't defend himself as when he was young. So one must now consider the standard of the reasonable person who is disabled, eldery, smaller, female, unarmed, etc. All of this goes into the equation.

I fully understand that there are sometimes mitigating circumstances, but I was speaking with respect to the OPers experience. As I pointed out on my first post in this thread, he's not elderly, disabled, a woman, etc. and therefore could not use any of that as an excuse for his actions in court.

Had the punk showed up for the trial, I can imagine what the prosecutor would ask the OPer:

DA: Was the man who allegedly threatened you alone??
OP: Yes sir.

DA: Didn't you have a friend there with you??
OP: Yes sir.

DA: Did the man have a weapon in his hands?? Did you see a weapon??
OP: No sir. None that I could see.

DA: To your knowledge, was he a trained fighter??
OP: Not to my knowledge.

DA: Are you a trained fighter??
OP: Yes sir.

Not looking good for the OPer. Too many other options to take before whipping out the iron. I don't believe the law would have been at all sympathetic.

 

[Glock Fan]

....Even a knife wielding maniac will have a lawsuit against you....

Not exactly true. A knife is considered a "deadly weapon", therefore if you can articulate that the aggressor is intending to inflict serious bodily injury or attempting to kill you, then "deadly force" is justified.

 

[Cotillion]

It's not always justified is what I was getting at. There's always some weird loophole defense lawyers seem to find. Or let's not forget the civil suits where the assailants sue the victims for silly things like being shot while robbing someone's house. It's not the norm but it DOES happen.

 

[rifleshooter474]

It's not always justified is what I was getting at. There's always some weird loophole defense lawyers seem to find. Or let's not forget the civil suits where the assailants sue the victims for silly things like being shot while robbing someone's house. It's not the norm but it DOES happen.

Happens a lot more then many think.

 

[Cotillion]

It's not always justified is what I was getting at. There's always some weird loophole defense lawyers seem to find. Or let's not forget the civil suits where the assailants sue the victims for silly things like being shot while robbing someone's house. It's not the norm but it DOES happen.

Happens a lot more then many think.

Exactly. Can't stress enough how in danger you better be to draw simply to protect yourself lawfully. It's unfortunate but it happens

 

[Firefighterchen]

Does anybody else remember the guy at the gas station that was attacked, grabbed his gun from in his car and put two in the attackers gut? Was he not justified to shoot someone attacking with fists?

 

[Agent Green]

^ Good grief. Are you serious? Do you know *anything* about self defense law?

 

[Axeanda45]

^ Good grief. Are you serious? Do you know *anything* about self defense law?

Uhmmm, greenie, it is an actual case he is talking about........Now would YOU care to tell us who knows what?

 

[Firefighterchen]

^ Good grief. Are you serious? Do you know *anything* about self defense law?

Apparently you didn't get the memo, it's been brought up recently that arguing ad hominem is getting old. Try some relevant information next time. It will help out a lot more.

 

[Agent Green]

I'm familiar with the incident. He was justified. That's why he wasn't prosecuted. Again, do either of you know anything *at all* about the legal use of deadly force? It appears not. All I see are a couple of untrained yahoos with far too much ego invested in carrying a gun. Obviously compensating for something. Some anger issues too. It's people like you who make me feel more gun control might actually be a good thing.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I'm familiar with the incident. He was justified. That's why he wasn't prosecuted. Again, do either of you know anything *at all* about the legal use of deadly force? It appears not. All I see are a couple of untrained yahoos with far too much ego invested in carrying a gun. Obviously compensating for something. Some anger issues too. It's people like you who make me feel more gun control might actually be a good thing.

You do realize the police still arrested the carrier in the gas station shooting? He must of been the bad guy if he got himself arrested then right? Neither victim was prosecuted, and no charges were filled for the act of self defense. No attacker showed up to court to press charges, just like the OP. Both the attackers and the attacker in the OP have violent criminal records, both self defense victims had a clean record. The only difference was one bad guy backed off and the other didn't.

Is it possible for you to debate like an adult and stop name calling? I am not sure what compensation or anger issues you are referring too...but you are the only one with an attitude that is unbecoming of a carrier.

 

[BC1]

I fully understand that there are sometimes mitigating circumstances, but I was speaking with respect to the OPers experience. As I pointed out on my first post in this thread, he's not elderly, disabled, a woman, etc. and therefore could not use any of that as an excuse for his actions in court.

Had the punk showed up for the trial, I can imagine what the prosecutor would ask the OPer:

DA: Was the man who allegedly threatened you alone??
OP: Yes sir.

DA: Didn't you have a friend there with you??
OP: Yes sir.

DA: Did the man have a weapon in his hands?? Did you see a weapon??
OP: No sir. None that I could see.

DA: To your knowledge, was he a trained fighter??
OP: Not to my knowledge.

DA: Are you a trained fighter??
OP: Yes sir.

Not looking good for the OPer. Too many other options to take before whipping out the iron. I don't believe the law would have been at all sympathetic.

Exactly! The intent of my post was in agreement with you. He was a young, healthy individual trained in martial arts who did not face the imminent use of force of such magnitude to justify introducing a firearm.

 

[BC1]

I'm familiar with the incident. He was justified. That's why he wasn't prosecuted. Again, do either of you know anything *at all* about the legal use of deadly force? It appears not. All I see are a couple of untrained yahoos with far too much ego invested in carrying a gun. Obviously compensating for something. Some anger issues too. It's people like you who make me feel more gun control might actually be a good thing.

As an instructor we see Darwin at work regularly. Lot's of Rambos. Lot's of stupidity. Lot's of chimpanzee's in oversize sneakers trying to move and shoot. Starts making one think that not everyone is cut out for this.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I'm familiar with the incident. He was justified. That's why he wasn't prosecuted. Again, do either of you know anything *at all* about the legal use of deadly force? It appears not. All I see are a couple of untrained yahoos with far too much ego invested in carrying a gun. Obviously compensating for something. Some anger issues too. It's people like you who make me feel more gun control might actually be a good thing.

As an instructor we see Darwin at work regularly. Lot's of Rambos. Lot's of stupidity. Lot's of chimpanzee's in oversize sneakers trying to move and shoot. Starts making one think that not everyone is cut out for this.

Those that would give up essential freedom for temporary security, deserve neither freedom or security. Darwinism does not work for the human race, we have evolved past survival and have a set of morals the rest of the animal kingdom do not have. But since you want to bring up evolution, mutation, natural selection, or survival of the fittest, I have not heard of any animal surviving very long if it waited till the attacker sunk claws or teeth into them. You two need to check your stance on the 2nd amendment. Those that do not want guns and would not throw a punch to get their way are not the problem. It's those that do not want guns except for themselves. The 2nd amendment is an essential freedom, and if you do not want that for your fellow citizen, you do not deserve it either.

As an instructor, everyone holds you to higher moral ground. Calling people rambos, stupid, and chimpanzee's is disrepectful to all the other instructors. I never hear Ayoob or other higher caliber instructors calling their fellow law abiding carriers insulting names, and maybe that is why you will never reach that podium. That's a shame too, because we all have the ability to become something great, but we choose to lower ourselves.

 

[BC1]

Those that would give up essential freedom for temporary security, deserve neither freedom or security. Darwinism does not work for the human race, we have evolved past survival and have a set of morals the rest of the animal kingdom do not have. But since you want to bring up evolution, mutation, natural selection, or survival of the fittest, I have not heard of any animal surviving very long if it waited till the attacker sunk claws or teeth into them. You two need to check your stance on the 2nd amendment. Those that do not want guns and would not throw a punch to get their way are not the problem. It's those that do not want guns except for themselves. The 2nd amendment is an essential freedom, and if you do not want that for your fellow citizen, you do not deserve it either.

As an instructor, everyone holds you to higher moral ground. Calling people rambos, stupid, and chimpanzee's is disrepectful to all the other instructors. I never hear Ayoob or other higher caliber instructors calling their fellow law abiding carriers insulting names, and maybe that is why you will never reach that podium. That's a shame too, because we all have the ability to become something great, but we choose to lower ourselves.

My stance on the second amendment is what the high court interprets it as; as ALL law is. Not your opinion or anyone who likes your post. The second amendment allows that reasonable restrictions may be placed on violent offenders, those with psychiactric disorders, those with mental retardation, those who pose a grave danger to others. I'm not losing my life on that firing line.

Now I posted a thread some time ago about a student that had to be removed from my range for looking down the barrel of his gun, twice. Roughly 75 responders, most of them instructors, advised I was too lenient. Some even thought I should have had the permit pulled. I didn't do that. In fact I stopped his arrest by one of my instructors so he wouldn't lose his permit. Even NavyLtCmdr thought I was too lenient (an opinion I value highly). I only hope someday I don't hear he looked down the barrel and unintentionally shot himself. Some USA Carry posters were present in that class. Have a read --> http://www.usacarry.com/forums/inst...had-remove-student-today-opinions-sought.html

The truth is that some ARE Rambos, some lack dexterity to the point of danger, some are destructive. So an instructor can't say it? I'll tell you what... become an instructor, teach tactical and PP classes for a few years and then respond based on experience. After a few years as a trainer you'll see more wacky behavior than one might believe. Mistakes can be corrected. Flakes cannot. All of our instructors are required to wear a vest for a reason. As the Chief RSO at my facility, I can't always be present to watch things. It's a "HOT" range and is "self-policed." When the grounds are empty, the Rambos and those without a brain shoot out the range spotlights, electrical boxes, distance markers and range rule signs. Many days I arrive to find glass bottles shot all over the infield. They hammer the pistol target stands with OO bucksot blasting the frames to hell. The behavior is dangerous, it's destructive, it's costly, it's illegal, it causes the grounds crew a lot of work.

I don't care much what anyone thinks of my comment... it stands... and we have the holes in the wall to prove it. I have to stand on that range and train people. I'm not getting shot by someone with repeated safety violations. I'm not putting my instructors in harm's way either. And to go a step farther, when my instructor sees repeated gross safety violations despite corrective measures, he is instructed to pull the student. If there's any show of anger or crazy behavior when the student is dismissed the gun will be taken and an arrest may be effected. Period. Are you kidding? Instructors can't fool around with this stuff or we'll be taking a dirt nap. Chen, all my students are treated with respect on the range and in my classrooms. We take lengthy steps to ensure everyone masters the skills and drills. But see, this is a chat board, not the range. We're allowed to have a little fun here.

BTW, in years passed I took two classes at LFI, one with Mas. Neglingently discharge one in his class and you're gone.